Standing Committee G

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

David Amess: Before we begin I should inform members that due to an error at the press, new clauses 18, 19, 20 and 21 appear on the marshalled list of amendments as new clauses relating to part 5. They should in fact appear with the remaining new clauses on page 275.Clause 41 applications for planning permission and certain consents

Clause 41 - applications for planning permission and certain consents

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 356, in
clause 41, page 25, line 16, after 'think', insert 'reasonably'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 357, in 
clause 41, page 25, line 18, after 'think', insert 'reasonably'.
 Amendment No. 377, in 
clause 41, page 25, line 19, after '(3)', insert 'must be reasonable and'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. If we are to meet at this uncivilised hour, the rest of the House's functions have to be compatible. I have just come from Portcullis House, and through the glass door, which is locked, I could see the amendment paper for today and all the other documents that we may or may not need in Committee. We cannot do our job properly if the other offices of the House are not operating at a similar earlier hour now that we have moved Committees forward. Could you look into this matter urgently with the Serjeant at Arms and see what can be done?

David Amess: This is not a matter for my consideration, but obviously it has been heard by noises off. I know that it is a nuisance, but the hon. Gentleman can obtain all the necessary documents from the Vote Office in the Members Lobby. I will find out what the arrangements are at Portcullis House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. I have received a helpful letter from Hansard, which states:
''I regret to inform you that, because of the heavy work load in Committees, the Official Report for the afternoon sitting of Tuesday 21 January will not be available until tomorrow morning. I apologise for any inconvenience that this may cause you or the Committee''.
 I am not in any way blaming any of the officials of Hansard; it is not their fault, it is the system. I do not see how we can do our job properly in these Committees if we do not have a proper record of what has happened, particularly in the previous sitting. We might be in the middle of a clause, subsection or group of amendments when we adjourn. If we cannot look back and see what happened in the previous 
 sitting, I do not see how we can do our job properly. If it is not going to be possible regularly to have Hansard reports from previous sittings, the Government will have to schedule these Committees on a weekly rather than twice-weekly basis.

David Amess: Again, that is not a matter for me, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There are undoubtedly teething problems with the new arrangements.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. What it amounts to is that the Government are over-scheduling the Committees. There are too many going on at the same time. It means that everyone in this place is in Committee—which is exactly what the Government want—and no one is down in the main Chamber paying attention to the really important debates.

David Amess: Order. I have heard enough on this point.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Have you been given any documents by the Minister that are relevant to this morning's debates? On Tuesday, I obtained documents relevant to matters I had been discussing in the morning after the sitting ended. I was told subsequently that they had been popped on the table. I do not consider that adequate. Are there any Government documents that we have not been given which we need to have before this morning's debate?

David Amess: Government documents are not a matter for the Chair. I have the impression that the Minister does not want to respond.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: After that little canter on points of order, which were important—some of them, anyway—[Interruption.] I did not say which. We now move to clause 41 and amendment No. 356. Would the Committee kindly turn to clause 41 on page 25, and look at subsection (3) of the proposed new section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990? That subsection reads:
''The local planning authority may require that an application for planning permission must include—
(a) such particulars as they think necessary;
(b) such evidence in support of anything in or relating to the application as they think necessary.''
 My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has devised an amendment to paragraph (a) so that it would read: 
''such particulars as they think reasonably necessary.''
 I believe that to be a useful amendment. Otherwise, the planning authority could ask for all sorts of extraneous information, which might be vaguely related to the application, but which could not reasonably be considered necessary. I hope that the Minister will accede to that simple amendment. 
 Similarly, paragraph (b) would be amended to read: 
''such evidence in support of anything in or relating to the application as they think reasonably necessary.''
 That amendment adds narrowness to the very wide possible requirements. 
 Planning authorities require more and more information to be submitted with planning applications. Sustainability reports, environmental impact assessments, traffic impact assessments, and a whole host of supporting documentation will be required for larger applications. That is expensive for the applicants. I believe it to be incumbent on all planning authorities and on the Secretary of State to consider the cost and inconvenience to applicants of having to provide such information, some of which may be necessary and important, but not all of which is important in every case. 
 The amendments are simple, and I hope that the Minister will consider them.

David Wilshire: May I add some comments, particularly in relation to amendment No. 356, which would amend subsection (1)(3)(b)? That section currently reads:
''such evidence in support of anything in or relating to the application as they think necessary.''
 The amendment would alter that to read: 
''such evidence in support of anything in or relating to the application as they think reasonably necessary.''
 There is a specific point behind this amendment that has concerned me for a long time, from the days when I was a member and then a chairman of a planning committee. It is also an issue that has regularly been raised with me as an MP, and no doubt with other hon. Members. From time to time, human nature being what it is, there will be disputes between neighbours about planning applications. Those disputes often concern who owns what. Arguments will be adduced that something cannot be done, because the person making the application does not own, for example, the hedge or the ditch concerned. I have no doubt that such issues have arisen in your Southend constituency, Mr. Amess. 
 Such cases may eventually end up with the ombudsman. The complaint will be that it was inappropriate to consider the application either because the papers submitted with the application showing the ownership of the site were wrong, or because the certificate confirming that the notice had been served on everyone who had an interest in the site was wrong. Reasons will be adduced for those complaints. There are occasions when it is almost impossible—sometimes wholly impossible—to give notice to a neighbouring owner, or to someone who might be involved in the site, because no one knows who that person is, or there may be no owner. 
 This issue exercises councillors, council officials, MPs, and ultimately the ombudsman. I am concerned that if this part of this clause stands without modification, it will now be argued that there is a requirement on the planning authority not to consider anything until every last doubt has been eliminated. This is another opportunity for neighbours who are trying to stop something that is perfectly permissible in planning terms from happening out of bad neighbourliness, or some other reason that has nothing to do with planning. 
 A requirement to say that we must have all the evidence without a test of reasonableness makes the problem worse. It will ensure that councillors, officials, MPs et al will get more and more of this complaining—dare I say, whingeing—which has nothing to do with our objective of planning the future of this country. Even if the other amendments do not appeal to the Minister, I ask him to give serious thought to having some form of words that makes it clear that the local authority is entitled to apply a test of reasonableness and to say to these people who make these complaints about land ownership, ''We hear what you say. We understand that you are concerned, but the applicant has done everything that is reasonable to supply us with information.'' 
 To go any further than reasonableness is not a planning consideration and will not make for good processing of applications. Indeed, it gets into the realm of the law on neighbour disputes. That is the context for amendment No. 356. The Minister may not like the way I have gone about it, but I urge him to consider the point. If he does not like these amendments, I ask him to suggest others to meet our legitimate and reasonable concerns, so that the Bill does not bung up the system and achieves the swifter, more efficient planning system that he says he wants.

Paul Beresford: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) from a slightly different aspect to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. Anyone who has been on a planning committee for any length of time and has looked at the tactics of some of the planning officials will recognise the term ''jobsworth''. There is a great temptation for local authority officials to cover themselves by asking for what most of us would consider unreasonable details. They stymie any progress on an application without making a decision or bringing it to the committee or members to make that decision. I am not sure whether the word ''reasonably'' should be in its present position or earlier in the sentence. That would be down to the Minister. The Minister often tells us that he has been on a planning committee for 11 years. I am sure that he will understand the argument, and I hope he will consider these reasonable amendments reasonably.

Sydney Chapman: I support my hon. Friend on these three eminently reasonable amendments. We have talked a lot about terminology and whether we should have ''may'' or ''must'', but I believe that ''reasonable'' is in line with the terminology of much town and country planning legislation and regulations. If it is not used universally throughout those Acts and regulations, it should be. The only additional point that I would, with the greatest respect, put to the Minister is that in trying to speed up our planning system—whether we will succeed is another matter—it is crucial that we are seen to be fair and that we strike a balance between the interests of promoters and developers of schemes and those who will be affected by them. It would be to the Government's credit if they accepted these seemingly minor, but significant, amendments.

Tony McNulty: It is nice to have a reasonable opening debate. Amendments Nos. 356, 357 and 377 are entirely unnecessary. The addition of the word ''reasonably'' in the position suggested in amendments Nos. 356 and 357 adds nothing to the clause, and nor does the insertion of the words ''must be reasonable'' in amendment No. 377. In law, ''necessary'' implies ''reasonable''. Furthermore, the court could review an authority's decision on the basis of ordinary judicial review principles if that authority were to impose requirements that it could not reasonably think were necessary, or which another party thought were unreasonable.
 In general, and whatever the intention may be, we have no reason to suppose that local authorities will act unreasonably in requiring information to enable them to determine planning applications. The current regulations enable them to direct an applicant to supply further information necessary to enable them to determine the application, and we do not envisage that they will act differently under the new provisions. 
 I accept the spirit of the suggestions made by Opposition Members, but the words that the amendments would add are entirely unnecessary. That has proved to be the case under the regime with the current regulations in place, and will be so under the new system. This is not a recipe for clogging up the system any more than it has been under the current system. 
 I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To use the Minister's analogy, we believe that the amendments are reasonably necessary. They are necessary, therefore they must be reasonable, and the Minister should be reasonable in accepting them. However, he has not done so. We have much to get through today, and I have much to say about the clause, which is important. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have a lot to say about the clause that is fairly technical and refers to many different Acts. I hope that the Committee will bear with me; I will try to take things slowly.
 The clause is in five parts, which deal with the forms that local authorities require in relation to applications for planning permission, tree preservation orders, advertisements, universities and listed buildings. I have examined section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—the principal Act—which from now on I shall refer to as the TCPA. In those days, Bills received proper scrutiny. They were drafted in a highly professional and considered manner, amendments were made, and they emerged as very good legislation. I do not blame the draftsmen of the Bill, but it seems that clause 41 replaces good, well considered legislation in the TCPA with something 
 that is much more nefarious and difficult to get to grips with, and much less clear. 
 Section 62 of the TCPA could not be simpler. It states: 
''Any application to a local planning authority for planning permission—
(a) shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act''.
 In other words, the Secretary of State may prescribe any regulations that he wishes, so he has more than adequate powers to deal with the whole of clause 41. Section 62 continues: 
''(b) shall include such particulars and be verified by such evidence as may be required by the regulations or by directions given by the local planning authority under them.''
 So the local authority has all the powers that it needs to vary the legislation. I therefore contend that the clause is unnecessary. However, we must consider it. 
 Clause 41(2) deletes section 73(3) of the principal Act, which deals with applications for varying or revoking reservations in planning permissions, and states: 
''Special provision may be made with respect to such applications—
(a) by regulations under section 62 as regards the form and content of the application, and
(b) by a development order as regards the procedure to be followed in connection with the application.''
 Again, that it is simple stuff, yet we are tinkering with it and deleting it. It was clear under existing legislation, so I am unsure why we need to vary it in the Bill. 
 Section 198(3) of the TCPA deals with tree preservation orders. Subsection (3) of clause 41 refers to it and adds to it additional subsections (8) and (9). Section 197 of the principal Act is also clear about how tree preservation orders are made, and the Secretary of State is given all the powers needed to deal with them. 
 I shall read out the relevant provision in the TCPA. Part VIII starts with the word ''Trees''—nothing could be clearer than that—and section 197(b) says that the local planning authority has 
''to make such orders under section 198 as appear to the authority to be necessary in connection with the grant of such permission, whether for the giving effect to such conditions or otherwise.''
 That is all pretty clear, simple and straightforward stuff, yet again the Bill tinkers with the existing legislation, which has been tried and tested in the courts and everyone understands. The clause is tinkering for the sake of tinkering. 
 Section 328 of the Town and Country Planning Act deals with universities. In comparison, subsection (5) of the clause must have taken the draftsmen many hours of midnight oil. Section 328 of the TCPA refers to—I have been through them all—the Settled Land Act 1925, the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Universities and College Estates Act 1925. That is all old and well established legislation. Section 26 of the Universities and College Estates Act 1925 has no less than 22 subsections. However, I have to say that all the subsections in the Acts that I have looked at have very 
 little relationship to planning. Tangentially, sections 26, 111, 112, 133 and 327 of the principal Act make small mentions of development, but it is unnecessary for the Bill to alter all those provisions. It achieves nothing, because most of the sections are irrelevant to planning, being concerned with how universities should dispose of and buy assets, deal with moneys, mortgage their moneys and so forth. That has little to do with the Bill. I repeat that it is tinkering at its worst. 
 Finally, subsection (6) of the clause deals with listed buildings. Again, unnecessary tinkering is going on. Section 10(2) of the listed buildings Act 1990 is simple: 
''Such an application shall be made in such form as the authority may require and shall contain
(a) sufficient particulars to identify the building to which it relates, including a plan;
(b) such other plans and drawings as are necessary to describe the works which are the subject of the application; and
(c) such other particulars as may be required by the authority.''
 It will not have escaped the Committee's notice that the wording in that Act is almost identical to the wording in the Bill, but we are tinkering again. More than adequate powers are already provided for in existing legislation. 
 What problem out there in the country is the clause supposed to remedy? I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against clause stand part. If Labour Members had any determination—

Tony McNulty: Gumption.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Yes, if they had enough gumption—and, indeed, if the Minister had any gumption—they would all have looked at what the civil servants had produced and said, ''This is a load of garbage; chuck it out. It is not needed in the Bill; it clutters everything up.'' With that explanation I hope for a little common sense. We should not be tinkering with Bills for the sake of it and cluttering up the courts with the inevitable applications for judicial review, because whenever an Act is altered, lawyers find one word that is different and say that it changes the meaning of the whole section. The clause, like many others in the Bill, will simply make more work for lawyers, and that is unproductive for the wealth-creating sector.

Sydney Chapman: The amendments that we discussed in the previous debate included the word ''reasonable'' because clause 41 needs clarification. What exactly can a local planning authority stipulate that a planning application should include? Many people are worried because the clause rewrites sections of the principal Act. The extra requirements that local planning authorities will be able to impose on applicants, whether they do so or not, could be onerous. I am always suspicious when blanket authority is given to the Government, or an agency of Government, to impose extra demands on the people of our country. That is putting it rather grandly, but simply, and I hope that it makes the point.
 I shall ask the Minister some questions now, so that he has plenty of time to deal with them before we vote 
 on clause stand part. First, how does clause 41 make a difference to the principal Act? What changes does it make to that Act? Does it add anything? The Minister might reasonably argue that I should have done my research and found out myself, but the clause is complicated as it refers to many parts of the principal Act—sections 62, 73, 198, 220 and 328, among others. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask him to spell out what effect clause 41 will have on the principal Act. 
 Clause 41(3) refers to tree preservation orders. My friends in politics—or perhaps I should say my friend—tells me that my only useful accomplishment in 32 years in the House is that I was the instigator of national tree year in 1973, before you were born, Mr. Amess. It was a successful campaign, which led to the creation of the Tree Council, which highlights its work by having a national tree week every year. All in all, the initiative has been quite successful. 
 Tree preservation orders are important, and they are used sparingly. The owner of a tree that has an amenity value in a particular area must get permission before he can do anything to it apart from light pruning, and certainly if he wants to lop, top or chop it. The orders were extended to include all trees in conservation areas. If someone wanted materially to alter a tree in such an area, unless it had a tree preservation order on it, they had to give notice of intention—six weeks, I think—to the local authority, and the local authority could then impose conditions. If the tree was in a conservation area and had a tree preservation order on it, the requirements of that order would come first and foremost. I would be interested to hear comments on that. 
 As for controlling the display of advertisements, I need not say anything more. 
 Clause 41(5) states: 
''In the principal Act before section 328 (settled land and land of universities and colleges) there is inserted the following section''.
 I will not read that out, but I am interested to know why it does not include schools, for example. It seems reasonable that it should, given that there is a reference to universities and colleges. Perhaps they have special historic legal requirements or privileges, but again it would be helpful if the Minister would deal with that point. 
 My last material point—this is one of my longer contributions in this Committee, Mr. Amess—concerns subsection (6), which refers to 
''section 10(2) of the listed buildings Act''.
 I am not aware of any such Act. I hope that the Minister does not think that I am being pedantic, but I am just wondering whether that subsection should refer to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. I should quite seriously be grateful for confirmation of that. If I am right, why has the full title of the Act not been used, as is the case elsewhere in the legislation? Perhaps I am wrong and there is a Listed Buildings Act, but I do not think so, because ''listed'' has a small ''l''. In any case, the year of the Act should be given in the text of clause 41.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is exactly right. In fact, I read out clause 41(6), which begins with the words
''In section 10(2) of the listed buildings Act''.
 There must be a drafting error in the clause, because the list of repeals in schedule 6 refers to section 10 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Sydney Chapman: This is one of those rare occasions when it looks as if I might be right. If I am right, and the Act has been described incorrectly or inadequately, an amendment should be made.

Tony McNulty: I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 82(6), which states:
''The listed buildings Act is the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990''.
 The Act is clearly defined there, as the hon. Gentleman asked. It is referred to as the ''listed buildings Act'' purely as a form of shorthand.

Sydney Chapman: I am most grateful to the Minister, and I will not pursue the point any further, but I still do not see why the Act is not accurately described at the first point in the Bill at which it is mentioned. If clause 82(6) came before clause 41, I would have no problem with the use of the shorter description of the Act in clause 41.
 I have one other point. The Minister will remember that at a previous sitting, when two spelling mistakes, or typographical errors, were pointed out in an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, he said that there was no need to change them.

Tony McNulty: I did not say that.

Sydney Chapman: Well, change them before Report.

Tony McNulty: With the best will in the world, I must point out that I said quite the opposite. I said that we did not know how many more errors there were. Let us not change just those two mistakes, prompting a reprint as the Bill leaves Committee. Let us ensure that we capture every one that we can and correct them all in one hit.

Sydney Chapman: I apologise to the Minister if I got the wrong end of the stick, but although what he has just said is true, one of his reasons was that there might be an extra cost if we were to correct the two typographical errors before Report. I note that the Minister has tabled a Government amendment to a later clause. If that amendment is passed, the Bill will presumably have to be reprinted before Report, so I do not see why the observed typographical errors should not be put right between the Committee stage and Report.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend not think that it is arrogant in the extreme for the Government to bring a Bill to Committee, but say that whatever mistakes are found, they will amend it only on Report? If that is the case, what is the point of having this Committee at all?

David Amess: Order. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will concentrate their remarks solely on clause 41, and not labour that point any further.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is an important point.

David Amess: Order. It is for the Chair to decide how matters proceed.

Sydney Chapman: I have been attempting to reach the conclusion of my peroration for the past five minutes, Mr. Amess. I finish by saying that because clause 41 gives extra powers, and enables local planning authorities to impose extra requirements on applicants, those should be much more clearly spelt out in the clause.

Tony McNulty: I am tempted to tell the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) that he should have done his research—but I will not, although he offered me cause to say that.
 I must say that I cannot see what all the fuss is about, although I realise that that will make Opposition Members deeply suspicious. If this is tinkering, then it is tinkering with a purpose.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: Wait a minute; I have only just started.
 All the provisions ably read out by the hon. Member for Cotswold do most of what we need in a new and modern planning system, but they do not prescribe the nature of the forms that applicants should use. Since the 1990 Act, a plethora of forms has been used, and they vary between London boroughs, let alone the rest of the country. Some have good practice and some do not. As part of the process of streamlining and to help people know what to expect from planning authorities, we want to prescribe the nature and form of the paperwork that people will use to apply.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I come back to the core point that I made in my summing up. Will the Minister tell us what is wrong the present planning system that requires the provisions in the clause? For every subsection, with the possible exception of the one related to universities, regulations are already available to the Secretary of State and the local authority to achieve exactly what he says the clause will achieve.

Tony McNulty: That is the right point, but made in the wrong context. The principal Act does not contain any provisions to prescribe the nature of the application forms.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is all done by regulations.

Tony McNulty: Absolutely not. Regulations do not prescribe from the centre what every local planning authority in the country should use as appropriate official forms or, concomitant with that, give local authorities the power not to entertain applications that are not on prescribed forms. That is the one element that the principal Act does not contain, and the clause simply remedies that.
 When we were deciding how to streamline, we examined the notion of a ''ready reckoner'' planning checklist, so that all parties would know exactly what needed to be marshalled to present a legitimate planning application. After some investigation, it did 
 not seem appropriate to follow that route. There are 500,000 applications each year, and the form and manner in which they are presented to local planning authorities varies enormously. 
 This is not a matter of local interpretation, independence or autonomy. Our citizens should know what to expect and what they need to marshal in applications for planning approval, whether they are in a London borough or anywhere else in the country. 
 Where tinkering occurs, it is because either there is no power in the relevant legislation to prescribe the forms, or the power is prescribed by regulations rather than development orders. The provision is no more sinister than that. It is about the standardisation of the requirements, which will have benefits for delivering the planning system. One spin-off that is not central to why we want to tidy up planning applications is that if we standardise we can far more readily get the forms and the process on to the internet, so that people can apply electronically rather than on paper. 
 As the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) says, if one has been on a planning committee for any length of time and taken it seriously—as I know many do—one will have seen the paperwork and application forms long before the application appears on the agenda in front of the committee. Some of the content of those forms is horrendous. All that the clause does is give people a comprehensive list of what they need to put in their applications, and standardise the forms on a national basis. 
 I appreciate that, as the hon. Member for Cotswold says, if such a duty does not apply to the whole array of applications—tree preservation orders, listed buildings regulations and so on—rather than just to planning applications, the measure looks rather clumsy, but if we start from that premise we have to look back at every aspect of the principal Act, and any previous Acts, and hook the new responsibility on to them. That makes for a terribly over-complicated clause, but I assure Opposition Members that clause 41 is a purely technical clause, as the hon. Member for Cotswold said. It does no more than standardise the form and ''electronify''—or whatever the word is—the system to meet people's needs. 
 If standardising and prescribing the nature of the forms on which applications have to be written or submitted in order to be taken seriously and legitimately by the planning authorities is a ''bureaucratic jackboot'' tendency, so be it. It will streamline and aid all those involved in the planning system, from the applicant through to the local planning authorities and the wider communities who want to know what the application is about and what form it is presented in. In that context, I ask that clause 41 stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister did his best and I congratulate him, but I am no more convinced having heard his explanation. It is not his fault, but the clause is completely unnecessary. I have counted, and found
 that any practitioner will have to refer to at least six underlying Acts in considering the clause. That is the problem. Every time we amend an Act people have to refer to the previous Act, and also the Act that it amended. Far from simplifying and consolidating the system, which is what I thought the Minister would say in explanation of this clause, it makes the whole system far more complicated. The clause is unnecessary and existing regulations are already sufficient and safe. The existing provision refers to the Secretary of State and the local authority. If the regulations cannot prescribe the form and manner in which the application must be made—that is, the simplest thing to do with planning applications—there must be something wrong with all of us.
 I strongly suggest that this is tinkering. It is bureaucratic and unnecessary, and I urge my hon. Friends—and Labour Members—to vote to strike out the clause. We could then at least make this Bill marginally less bad than it is. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 4.

Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 - Power to decline to determine applications

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The clause is at least laid out clearly in four parts. Part 1 covers the power to decline to determine subsequent applications, and part 2 covers the power to decline to determine overlapping—so-called twin-tracking—applications. Parts 3 and 4—proposed new sections 81A and 81B of the principal Act—do the same for listed buildings and conservation areas. I will confine my remarks to parts 1 and 2, because what I say will apply equally to parts 3 and 4.
 The first part of the clause covers the power to decline to determine a subsequent application, if it is materially the same, within a period of two years. I accept that under proposed new section 70A(1), a local planning authority ''may'' decline, as I am sure the Minister will be the first to point out. That means that it still has the power to consider an application within two years, but I would have thought that in normal circumstances, its inclination would be not to consider an application within the two-year period. 
 If an authority declines to determine an application within the two-year period, will the applicant still be able to appeal that second application? I wonder about 
 the sense of proposed new section 70A(1), as two years is quite a long time. A great deal can happen: the plan or the regional spatial strategy may be revised, or a landmark court case may alter the way in which a local planning authority has to consider certain sorts of applications. I am not sure what the proposed new subsection is designed to achieve. 
 I believe that the Government hope that the provision will speed up the process, but we have had numerous representations—from the CBI, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the British Retail Consortium and the British Property Federation, for example, all of which are consumers, or users, of the planning system. They all tell us that far from speeding up the planning system, this is likely to have the reverse effect, especially for large and complex applications. Making the system more stratified and rigid means that there is less flexibility for developers. There is less flexibility, for example, to lodge a first application, concentrate the minds of the planning authority, the local community and everyone else, and then have meaningful discussions with the local authority to see whether a modified and superior application can be devised. 
 If we are not careful, the two provisions will be a charter for the local planning authority to keep delaying. The system needs flexibility; we want the local authority and the developers to come up with projects that best suit the area and the community. They should benefit the area economically, be sustainable, have the best spatial plan and suit the environment—all the factors that we have discussed. If we make things more difficult by making the system more rigid, I am not sure what we will achieve. 
 Much of what I say applies to the power to determine overlapping applications in the so-called twin-tracking process in proposed new section 70B. In many ways, it is even more important. The outside bodies always include the twin-tracking proposal in the half a dozen bad things about the Bill. The Law Society states: 
''We are not convinced of the need to abolish ''twin-tracking'', that is the submission of two identical planning applications at the same time to enable a developer to appeal to the Secretary of State on the failure of the local planning authority to determine one within eight weeks, whilst negotiating with the authority on the other application.''
 As I said, twin-tracking is a useful mechanism; it often takes place in complex applications where the local authority is not able to determine the application within eight weeks. One application goes to appeal and a similar application is submitted to the local planning authority to enable negotiations to continue. Provided that the negotiations proceed in a positive way and planning permission is eventually granted by the local authority, the second application, which has gone for determination by the independent inspector, is then withdrawn, saving time and cost. 
 My great fear about the power to decline overlapping applications is that many more will go to appeal. Appeals are expensive and long-winded; often, at the end of the day, all parties, including the local authority because it is not making the 
 determination, feel dissatisfied with the outcome. Bearing in mind the Green Paper and given, as I said at the start of our proceedings, that 90 per cent. of all planning applications are eventually passed, it would be much better if 100 per cent. of valid applications submitted were passed, because that would mean that everyone was doing their job. Applications would either be withdrawn or passed and that is a much more sensible way to proceed. My worry is that rather than 90 per cent. of applications being passed, the figure will keep dropping and more applications will go to appeal. 
 We will be doing the country's planning system a disservice if the two clauses are accepted without amendment. I have no doubt that the Committee will accept the clause as drafted but my words will come back to haunt this country in a few years.

Paul Beresford: I congratulate you, Mr. Amess, on looking interested throughout the sitting. However, this debate is of interest to developers and to local planning authorities.
 In discussing the previous clause, the Minister said, in effect, that he did not know what all the fuss was about, which should apply to the entire clause. I do not know what the fuss is about. Much of my thinking on the issue relates to my experience and to discussions with local planning officers. Having read the discussion papers forwarded by the developers, I thought that I would test them out with the recipients. The reaction of an outstanding local planning director in London was that he did not know what the fuss was about. He thought it was a load of nonsense and he wondered why we were bothering. He made several key points: he said that if an application is similar to another one and there seems to be twin-tracking, ''We take the fee, then we get on with looking at the application, which is much easier if it is similar to the previous one. We get the same money for a fraction of the work, and if there is no real change in the application, then we decline it. There is no fuss, no bother and a large fee in the local coffers.'' 
 That planning director also talked about a warning and used an intriguing example. He talked of a key site, a valuable site on the riverside that had been bought, had changed hands several times, and for which a developer was finally drawing up plans. In the meantime, it had been squatted by one of the green groups. That group was fascinating because it wanted a green atmosphere and a green community, and was growing vegetables to demonstrate it. The fact that the soil was horrendously polluted meant that I would not have gone anywhere near the vegetables the group grew—one might have contracted Pink's disease, from the mercury. So the whole thing became a big smile. 
 However, the green group got organised and intended, as a spoiling tactic, to put in an application for a development that was not dissimilar to that which it anticipated the developer would submit. If the legislation went through, that sort of spoiling tactic could work, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, the word ''may'' applies—the local authority may reject such an application. 
 Fortunately for the local authority in that case, because it would have caused a storm, the fee required meant that those green individuals—green with a luminous tinge if they had eaten their own vegetables—did not proceed with the application. However, the planning director made the point that that would be a spoiling technique. 
 The planning officer also agreed that many points made from the private sector were valid. There should be an opportunity to make subtle changes to meet changes in circumstances. A few years ago, there was a glut of office buildings and subtle changes were made as a result. If the twin-tracking idea was stopped, the opportunity to make subtle changes to meet changes in economic circumstances could also be stopped. That would be detrimental to many developers who are paying enormous amounts in borrowed money and would be unable to progress with their plans and their development. 
 There has been an interesting situation in my area. There are some applications that local authorities would wish, as a knee-jerk reaction, to reject. Nuclear power stations, incinerators, bail hostels, housing for asylum seekers and clinics for paedophiles would be classic examples. There were recently three applications for building incinerators in different areas of Surrey. I want to extrapolate a little, because although my extrapolation is hypothetical, it is quite plausible. Two of the three applications were from the contractor for the local authority for removal of waste, and one was from a second organisation that also has considerable abilities and expertise in that area. One application was to build on green belt—I do not understand why the applicants thought they could stick an incinerator on green belt—and that was rejected fairly promptly. One was an application to build in the countryside and was contrary to the proximity principle, but it was accepted. The third application was for a site near Guildford, and was therefore close to the main source of the rubbish that had to be incinerated. The incinerator would have been built on a site that was already used for collection of rubbish. Everything was in favour of that application, except that the site was not far away from a park. 
 The local authority was bombarded by a huge and virulent campaign, and, to put it bluntly, councillors of all political complexions bowed to the blast. In my opinion, the reasons given for rejection were pretty pathetic. In essence, it was said, if someone were sitting in the park, the development would be unsightly, though from a distance. I found that amazing because, having seen many incinerator plans throughout the country, I felt that that one was particularly successful. It looked like a church with a steeple. It was a modern design, albeit without the cross on top. It was a dramatically and cleverly disguised incinerator. But the local authority said that it was a little too high—I cannot remember whether it was 5 ft or 3 m too high—and came up with some half-baked excuses. 
 The hypothetical part is that the developer could have pressed the case in two ways. One way was to 
 appeal. Judging by a previous successful appeal in Portsmouth, I suspect that there was a high chance that the incinerator application would have been given the go-ahead by the inspector and, presumably, the Minister. 
 If the applicant were so minded, he could also have twin-tracked: he could have made a similar application in which the development was 5 ft or 3 m shorter and applied pressure on the local authority to reconsider. The developer could have proposed a subtle change or changes that dealt with the problems that the local authority used—I believe incorrectly—to turn down the application. 
 The word ''may'' is in the measure but, as I have said, in the classic scenario of applications for nuclear power stations, bail hostels or clinics for paedophiles, the local authority would bow to pressure from the local people and reject them, sometimes quite unreasonably. In essence, like the Minister, I do not know what the fuss is about. We do not need the provision, and it will damage progress and development.

Sydney Chapman: I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne did not push his two amendments, because they were unnecessary. He wanted to insert ''proposed'' before ''development'', but as the words
''to which the applications relate''
 appear after ''development'', it would have been superfluous. I therefore welcome what he has done. I say that deliberately because I want the Minister to understand that our amendments are tabled in good faith and are not as trivial as he thinks. 
 The Minister was right to take me to task for not doing my research. I merely point out that the parliamentary time between Second Reading and the Standing Committee stage was very short. I confess that I did not spend Christmas day or new year's day studying the Bill. I thought that I owed Christmas day to someone else, and on new year's day, I was in no fit condition to read the Bill. 
 In all sincerity, it is monstrous to have to deal with the complexities of the Bill in 12 sittings. Just down the Corridor is the Standing Committee considering the Hunting Bill, for which I understand 20 sittings have been allocated. I am not an expert on what is going on in the other Committee, but I should have thought that the issue was quite simple and did not necessarily need 20 sittings. The Government have got things the wrong way round: the Hunting Bill Committee should have had 12 sittings, and we should have had 20 or more. I say that just in passing. 
 I have another apology for the Minister. His eagle eye may well have spotted that on Second Reading I said that I welcomed the intention to abolish what has become known as twin-tracking—that is, putting in identical, or almost identical, applications to the local authority. I am a reasonable person. Just as I have been persuaded by what I loosely describe as environmental organisations to table amendments that we think would improve and strengthen the Bill, so it is necessary to have a balance between the interests of the environment and the interests of 
 applicants, developers, promoters, house builders or whoever. I have been persuaded that there are merits in twin-tracking. I now oppose getting rid of twin-tracking summarily in legislation because I believe that it helps to speed up the planning process and getting rid of it could slow things down.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. He has had enormous experience of the planning system, and he will confirm that we have not discussed the matter. I also said on Second Reading that I was in favour of abolishing twin-tracking. However, having had the representations from these worthy and important outside bodies, I am convinced of the usefulness of twin-tracking, exactly in line with what my hon. Friend has said.

Sydney Chapman: The Housebuilders Federation, the Confederation of British Industry, the British Retail Consortium, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the British Property Federation have all made representations, many of which are very persuasive. If local planning authorities could, persistently and consistently, determine applications within a statutory period of eight weeks there would be no need for twin-tracking. It has come into being because of the slowness of the planning system.
 I enter the caveat that some planning applications are so significant that it would be unreasonable for the local planning authority to determine them within eight weeks. Generally speaking those applications would be called in by the Secretary of State for a public inquiry. It is reasonable to say that twin-tracking has come about and should be maintained, regrettable though that may be, at least until local planning authorities are able to expedite their procedures. The minor planning applications should of course be determined well within the eight weeks. 
 Secondly, I welcome the additional resources that the Government intend to plough into the local planning authority system to give those authorities extra resources to improve their service to applicants. As with most of the extra resources that are going from the taxpayer through the Government to various public institutions, it seems that the better one does, the more resources one gets. That echoes the old argument about whether we should devote extra resources to try to improve the performance of a poorer hospital or give them to the hospitals that are doing rather well. I do not want to get into that debate, and I would be out of order if I did. 
 It is essential that the extra resources should come up front so that authorities can improve their performance and give speedier, but well-considered decisions. I do not know whether it is the same in Harrow, but Barnet is overwhelmed with applications of one sort or another. My researches—not on Christmas day or new year's day—show that it has inadequate resources to deal with the volume of applications. 
 Finally, let us take the development of housing. It is vital. We must find the right land on which to build, but there is a great need for much more new housing, 
 particularly social housing. Twin-tracking applications are sometimes essential for house builders. The market conditions may change, and builders may submit an application and suddenly realise that the details have to be changed to reflect new market opportunities. I want some assurance that that point will be taken into consideration. I may be knocking at an open door, but the point must be put on behalf of house builders that even if an application is accepted and they start on the development, a revised application may need to be submitted to make the necessary changes. That is an important and serious point, and at the very least, I hope that twin-tracking—if that is how it would be described—should be allowed in both situations. 
 I admit that I have changed my mind. Having examined the evidence and weighed it against that of other organisations, I feel that the developers, promoters of development and house builders have a strong case for saying, at least for the present, that twin-tracking and repeat or similar applications should still be allowed.

David Wilshire: I listened with care to my hon. Friends, and I apologise to others for having to pop out for a moment or two. I agreed with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said except when he advocated 20 sittings. It is a personal matter, but from a political point of view, it should be more than that. The Proceeds of Crime Bill Standing Committee, on which I served had 39 sittings, and after a while, I began to receive comments about my ties—though, as it happens, I received another this morning. I was criticised for wearing the same tie twice, and with 39 sittings, I had to buy a lot of ties. It was expensive, so for that particular reason, I do not want to get round the Tie Rack cost-cycle again.

Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend is being a little disingenuous. He knows perfectly well that a competition is taking place in Parliament this week to raise awareness of cancer. Mr. Ben McIntyre has been asked to find the person with the gaudiest, most horrible-looking or most colourful tie, and money will go to charity for the winner.

David Wilshire: I am conscious of that, but I have to disappoint my hon. Friend because the competition is next week. I am wearing my modest ties this week, so you will be glad that the Committee is not sitting all of next week, Mr. Amess.
 The clause concerns me because of the harm that it will do to my local authority and county. It will make it impossible to get as much money out of applicants as it was before. I understand that as a dedicated socialist, the Minister will not care much for capitalism, but as far as I am concerned, extra applications equal extra fees. I am in favour of that for one simple reason, which is that the Government are clobbering the south-east by taking money away from properly run areas and giving it to the spendthrifts of the north, which support the Government. For example, my local police authority faces a 46 per cent. increase in its precept, my county faces a 15 to 20 per cent. increase and my borough the same—

David Amess: Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to the clause 42 stand part debate?

David Wilshire: Of course you may, Mr. Amess, because my comments were a relevant warm-up to my first point that if by insisting on the clause, the Government reduce the income of my local planners, the 15 to 20 per cent. increase that the Government are forcing on my constituents will become even larger.
 That is a good reason for voting against the clause standing part of the Bill, but it is not the only reason, because the clause also represents something of a Swampy's charter. It will be perfectly possible for the dinosaurs who want to stop everything happening in this world to keep whipping in applications to prevent the proper applicant—the landowner or developer, for example—from doing anything for two years. That is wrong, and we should not make it easy for the wreckers to wreck, which is what I believe that the Minister is setting out to do. 
 Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold mentioned, twin-tracking is important. I know from my own experience—

David Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman define ''a proper applicant''?

David Wilshire: A proper applicant is someone genuinely seeking to develop land rather than someone who puts in an application with the intention of preventing someone else from doing something. I suggest that the provision is a wrecker's charter, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands my point.

David Wright: In that case, I look forward to the Opposition tabling an amendment on Report to define the term.

David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me. I am already thinking of enough amendments to require two days on Report, and it seems that the hon. Gentleman wants three. Perhaps I shall give way again for even more suggestions to save me staying up on Christmas and new year's day. No, it seems that he has given up. He has probably been told to shut up in case he helps me.
 On twin-tracking, I know from my experience as a member and subsequently chairman of a planning committee how it focuses the mind of local planning officers. They do not like the process because it shows them up if they cannot work quickly enough. Anything that helps speed up the planning process should appeal to the Minister. He said that that was one of the main purposes of the process, but he is about to slow it down. This is a rotten clause in a rotten Bill and I hope that we shall not pursue it.

Tony McNulty: Only some of hon. Gentlemen's comments were germane to the debate—much of his last contribution was not. The hon. Member for Cotswold made a fair point in saying that anything done in this regard must be related to the performance of local planning departments. We accept that, which is why the planning delivery grant will shortly be in place.
 Opposition Members' remarks start from the premise that, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, we are trying summarily to dismiss and get rid of twin-tracking and other elements in the clause, which—not least because of the key word ''may'' as opposed to ''must''—we are not. We are simply adding a degree of discretion to the process. In some circumstances, though not many, twin-tracking can be a useful device in focusing the mind, but it has been said that it is open to abuse. 
 I worked in a planning committee at the height of the previous property boom—artificially inflated by Lawson's economic pyrotechnics in the early 1990s—and know that local planning authorities were bombarded with all sorts of speculative developments. Any back garden larger than two postage stamps would have about 10 twin-tracked applications on it, driving LPAs to a standstill. They were frazzled with that level of abusive activity. As I said, twin-tracking has a limited role, which is why we are introducing an element of discretion. There is no question of summarily getting rid of it, as has been implied there is. We want to inhibit the use of repeat applications to ensure that they cannot be wrongly used to wear down the committee to force it to consider an application that it otherwise would not.

Paul Beresford: This is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The problem with ''may'' is that it obscures the right of the local authority to decide on whether to contract. I shall give the Minister a specific example that should, as he has been on a planning committee, concentrate his mind. A local authority can be under pressure or not like a particular development. Let us focus on an example that recently caused the Home Office some trouble—a paedophile clinic in Surrey, which was rejected. There is no doubt that local authorities will use the excuse of ''may'' to say no, when reasonably, in the broadest line of things, they should allow twin-tracking to proceed.

Tony McNulty: Even if that happened, they would be saying no to twin-tracking, not to the application process and subsequent appeal process. If it seemed that that capriciously or unreasonably happened at any stage in the line of application, the LPA would get its just desserts as a result of the appeal process. It is not a case of either/or. The hon. Gentleman talked as though twin-tracking was the application process. It is not; it is but part and a variation of it. I defend the discretion, because it gives an extra string to the bow of the local planning authority.
 As a Minister with responsibilities for planning, I do not want to be charged with examining hundreds of cases as they pile in for the regions for which I am responsible to see whether I can afford discretion on twin-tracking or any other element. However, I assure the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet that his point about performance is right. We recognise that the performance of local planning authorities must improve before we allow them to decline to return twin-tracking applications, given that discretion. It is not right that developers should be penalised where the LPA has knocked down a building. That is wrong and goes to the heart of what we are trying to do. 
 We have announced a range of measures to improve local authority performance. There is the planning development grant, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Until performance has improved, the ability to twin track applications is still needed, and we should therefore introduce the measure only once delays in the planning system have been substantially overcome. 
 That will be part and parcel of how we measure each LPA's performance in the context of the planning delivery grant. I would love to go further and have an engaging debate on the nature of the PDG and what form it will take or otherwise, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet attempted, but I shall resist the temptation, not least because its mechanisms have not yet been formally announced. In that context, given that there is not a summary dismissal of the process and that there is a permissiveness and discretion, the provision takes on board many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I therefore urge that clause 42 should stand part of the Bill.

Sydney Chapman: I do not want to go into the detail unnecessarily, but there should be some simple mechanism whereby if an applicant thinks that the local planning authority is being unreasonable, he or she should not appeal to the Secretary of State but should be able to refer to the Secretary of State, who would give an immediate decision that there was a reasonable case for making a second application or whatever.
 The Minister says that he will not introduce the measure relating to twin tracking until he is satisfied that local planning authorities have the extra resources. I welcome that greatly, but I presume—the hon. Gentleman might be able to clarify this; if not now, then as soon as he can, perhaps this afternoon—that the commencement of different parts of the Act, about which there is a special clause, will be triggered at different times. There will have to be a comprehensive provision so that all parts will not suddenly be activated. There are certain cases for certain parts. It would be great if the hon. Gentleman could consider that, because we might need a rather complicated mechanism for introducing the various parts of the Bill that are coming into force.

Tony McNulty: I take the second point and the tail-end point, which I will consider, but I do not accept the first point. If the applicant thinks that the LPA has been unreasonable in not entertaining the second application, the recourse is the determination in due course of the first application. That is right and proper. I thought that I was half joking when I said that I did not want to sit as the planning Minister with a pile of applications—not even to determine them, but just to go through them—to ascertain whether the LPA had acted reasonably in not affording the discretion of twin-tracking.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have two points, which I will make one at a time. The Minister is being constructive in what he is saying—

Tony McNulty: Destructive?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Constructive. I was trying to be helpful to the Minister in saying that the mechanism
 will not come into force until planning authorities perform to a reasonable standard. Will he clarify his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and explain how he will put the mechanism into effect? Will there be a separate commencement order for the paragraph, and will there be separate commencement orders for each local authority, depending on performance?

Tony McNulty: I understand that there will a broad commencement order for the Bill, which is entirely usual, and a range of orders that follow for specific parts that require regulation, statutory instrument or whatever else, which is also entirely usual. As I understand it, improvement will be part of the planning and delivery grant process. It is not only a question of resources. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet slightly misinterpreted the point. It is not a matter only of when LPAs receive more resources, but when they bring their performance up to speed. By definition, these discretionary powers will be awarded to those LPAs that come up to scratch. By law, we cannot wait until every LPA has reached a certain level of performance before these elements kick in globally. They will be awarded LPA by LPA, and at different times, as the hon. Gentleman said.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am not entirely clear how the Government intend to lift the performance of the worst performing authorities. Surely there are proper mechanisms, through the Audit Commission or comprehensive performance assessments, to ensure that those authorities come up to standard. I give way to the Minister.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman cannot give way to me on an intervention, when he is intervening on me. I gave way to him.
 There are best value indicators and comprehensive performance assessments, but that is all prior to full implementation of the planning and delivery grant. They are there to assist the process.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is indulging me. Does he admit that the practical effect of the clause is as I said it was in my opening remarks? If, on a reasonably complex development, a developer has an intimation that the planning authority will not determine the application within eight weeks, a twin-track application will be lodged and the matter will be taken straight to appeal. The net effect of the clause will be a huge increase in the number of appeals.

Tony McNulty: That is not necessarily so. Other elements in the clause allow the local authority to refuse the same or a similar application within a two-year period.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister has skated past an important point. Is he now saying that if the local authority fails to determine the second application, that application cannot go to appeal? If so, the net effect of this ratchet would be even worse. The developer will simply make one application and immediately lodge an appeal if he believes that the local authority will not determine it.

Tony McNulty: An applicant cannot lodge an application and go straight to appeal without the
 LPA at least trying to determine the application. [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is surprised by what I have just said. The import for the discretionary use of twin-tracking is that if two applications are lodged at the same time, one is determined and there is no appeal on the part of the client to determine the second one. That is the whole point. There is a live application and another application in the process to go straight to appeal for non-determination. If there remains an appeal on the second one for non-determination, there is no point in the clause at all. However, the purpose of the clause is to stop the second application automatically going to appeal, hence the term ''twin-tracking''. As I said, the crucial point is the discretionary nature. Circumstances and materials change, and it is proper that the twin-tracking notion at least lies on the table for legitimate use.
 I will return to what I was saying about improvement, as, to be fair to Opposition Members, I admit that I am a tad confused myself, not least because with another hat on, we are going through what is happening and not happening on planning delivery lines. If anything that I have said about LPAs was not expected, I will write to Opposition Members to bring some clarity where, at least temporarily in my own head, there is confusion.

Paul Beresford: Going back a step or two, the Minister correctly told my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold that an application could not go to an appeal until it had been refused. If it is refused under the relevant paragraph, can it then proceed on to appeal?

Tony McNulty: As I understand it, the second application cannot proceed. That is the whole point of the paragraph. Two applications going into a system is where the ''twin'' part of twin-tracking comes from. It is not meant to be anything more than that, and I stress that it is discretionary rather than a statutory dismissal. Considering what I have said about performance, I commend clause 42 to the Committee.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: A little light has been shone on an important matter. As more light is shone, it becomes more obvious that the Government's plans do not make a great deal of sense. The Minister was again struggling to give us a reasonable explanation, and we will study his words carefully, particularly as he has now told us that a second application may not go to appeal if the local authority has failed to determine it. It is an important matter that will exercise both Members and outside bodies. I will not press the matter to a vote, because I want to have the opportunity, subject to Mr. Speaker's selection, to return to it on Report, because it is such an important matter.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Major infrastructure projects

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 99, in
clause 43, page 30, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Any planning application that the Secretary of State declares is of national or regional importance, as designated through subsection (1), must be subject to an Economic Impact Report.'.
 This important clause deals with major infrastructure projects and covers some of the biggest planning applications in this country. I am sure that the Minister could do this, but it would be useful to give the Committee some examples of the projects that are covered by the clause. For example, it covers runways over a certain length, airport terminals, power stations and nuclear reprocessing plants—although not nuclear power stations—major port and major refinery applications and big quarrying applications. It does not cover roads because they are subject to separate legislation but, in short, it covers some of the most important planning applications in the UK. 
 We all know from past large public inquiries—for example, on terminal 5 and on some of the power station applications—that they are extremely complex and take a long time. Subject to certain safeguards, Conservatives support the principle of reform that streamlines that system, provided—this is the caveat—that the local planning authority and local people have an adequate opportunity to make their views known. This is perhaps where we begin to have a problem with the Government's proposals, because they do not allow the LPA in whose area the big projects are situated an adequate opportunity to have its say. I will return to that on the clause stand part debate, and before you rule me out of order, Mr. Amess, I shall move to amendment No. 99. 
 It is extraordinary that the clause does not specifically state that there must be an economic impact report. That would form much of one part of a major infrastructure project inquiry. There should be an economic impact report, just as there will almost certainly be an environmental impact report, a sustainability report and numerous other reports. It would be useful to state in the Bill that there had to be an economic impact report. 
 The Council for the Protection of Rural England raised that point. It says: 
''Frequently new infrastructure is promoted on the basis that it will deliver economic regeneration benefits. Some of these schemes, including major new built development, airports and road schemes''—
 I doubt that road schemes come within the scope of the Bill— 
''can have a significantly damaging impact on the environment. It is therefore essential that demonstrable benefits will accrue, and for this information to be available before a decision is made on a development . . . The most expansive study into the relationship between transport infrastructure and economic regeneration was undertaken by the Government's Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA). The Committee (which comprised . . . academics, consultants, and those from environmental groups and business) reported in 1999. They 
wanted to discover whether there was a causal link between delivering new transport infrastructure and economic benefits . . . The SACTRA report recommended that Economic Impact Reports be produced before decisions over new infrastructure are taken forward. The Government accepted this recommendation and the Department for Transport is continuing to work up guidance. In the meantime, there is no requirement for promoters of developments to undertake an EIR, as envisaged by SACTRA. We believe a requirement to undertake an EIR for any major infrastructure project should be included in the Bill because it would: help inform decision making, in keeping with the Government's desire for evidence based decision making; separate information on the genuine economic benefits of a new development from the more spurious arguments; enable proper consideration to be given to the distributional impacts of new infrastructure, particularly regarding income and geographical groups . . . avoid developments being promoted which have serious environmental consequences but are based on inadequate information on their economic implications; and assist in assessing the true value for money of the development.''
 The CPRE gives one or two useful examples of case studies. It cites the Hastings bypasses: 
''The Government commissioned a major study to examine the transport needs of the coastal town of Hastings. The Multi-Modal Study considered the need for two bypasses for Hastings. These would run through an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a number of Britain's top wildlife sites. The local authorities in the area had consistently argued that the two roads were essential to the regeneration of the town. The consultants undertaking the study attempted to undertake an Economic Impact Report''
 but they had great difficulty reconciling that with the environmental considerations. 
 That is a good example of why an economic impact report is useful in every case. It can begin to put the entire scheme in context. It must help to inform the Secretary of State, because he or she has to make the decision when an application is of sufficient size, complexity and national importance that it should become subject to the major infrastructure procedure. 
 Our amendment is eminently sensible, and I hope that the Minister will accede to it.

Matthew Green: I do not intend to detain the Committee for long because I should like us to make progress today, but I want to add my support to the amendment. If the Government are not minded to accept it, I should like them to explain how they will ensure that the economic impact report, as recommended by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, is taken into account. If they are not so minded, I would appreciate some clarification from the Minister.

David Wilshire: If, Mr. Amess, as this debate and the following debate unfold you conclude that a stand part debate is not necessary it would be helpful if you could let us know. There are a number of issues that go over and above the specifics of the amendments that need to be considered.
 The amendment is topical. The judicial review on London Gatwick airport is a classic example of what can go wrong if we do not think economic issues through on major infrastructure projects. For technical planning reasons—proper reasons, which I respect—it was felt inappropriate to include one aspect of the runway debate in the south of England. The court found that it was sensible to look at the whole pattern of runways in the south-east. That seems right. The economic implications of where that runway is put are crucial. If one part of the equation is left out, a 
 sensible planning decision cannot be reached on the others. I am sure that that is a cause dear to your heart, Mr. Amess, because Southend airport could well figure in all of this if Gatwick is left out. I am sure that you understand the point that I am making. 
 Whenever a major national, or even regional, planning application is before us, it is easy for everyone to focus on the environment. From past experience that is what happens, particularly with the lay community in an affected area. They will immediately see the environmental consequences and so it is easy for that planning application, when it starts on its tortuous route, to be seen as an environmental issue. 
 Therefore if we are to have a balanced debate about these sorts of projects, the environmental matters that will become blindingly obvious should not be allowed to stand in isolation. Minds are made up during the early part of these debates and then ears become closed and it is difficult to reopen them. It would be an enormous step forward to have, at the beginning of the process when the matter is called in and when the debate gets going, a clear economic impact report that could be considered alongside the obvious environmental issues. The debate could then be started on the totality of the issue. 
 It may be tempting for the Minister to say, ''It does not matter because these things will be teased out as time goes by.'' That is not so. I shall use Heathrow as an example. I want to talk about the terminal 5 issue on the next group of amendments, but for the moment I shall concentrate on the Government's suggestion that there should be another runway at Heathrow. It must be beyond dispute across this Committee that that would be called in should it come to an application. This is a major infrastructure project. 
 The debate has started and two things have happened quite predictably. The moment that the project is suggested, the local pressure groups limber up and start developing all the environmental arguments about why it should not happen there but preferably somewhere else. It is a nimby field day. Within moments all of the environmental issues are rehearsed. An environmental report from the Government is not needed for that to happen. It breaks out instantly. The Minister may be tempted to say that all that is needed is to let local people consider the economic impact on their community, but that is not possible. My experience both of terminal 5 and now of the runway debate is that local councils, for whatever reason, do not appreciate the need to consider the economic impact of such major issues. 
 I can give no clearer example than Spelthorne borough council, which was asked to consider the Government's consultation paper. The environmental issues raised were rightly considered and a report was presented to the council, asking it to reach a view on the consultation document. That report has just over 20 pages of reasons why the environmental damage to the local community would be so great that local people should oppose the plan. The report contains only one short sentence about the economic issue—not even a full page—dismissing it as being of no relevance. Neither local pressure groups nor, in my 
 experience, local councils can be relied upon to give a fair hearing to the economic aspects of such matters. 
 I therefore believe that it is an enormous step in the right direction to require the start of the debate to be focused equally on economic and environmental issues. For once, I am prepared to agree that that should start with the Secretary of State. I exempt that from my earlier complaints about the jackboot powers that the Minister has taken for the Secretary of State. 
 As I have suggested, it is not possible to rely on anyone other than the Secretary of State to put the economic arguments into the public domain, and so I agree that he should be required to do so. It is inevitable that when that happens there will be tensions, conflicts and disagreements within the community. 
 The choice of the words ''economic impact assessment'' in the amendment is significant. The amendment does not specify a national, regional or local assessment. It must therefore be made clear that the assessment should cover national and regional issues, because those are the issues that will be called in. However, my support for the amendment is based on the fact that there must be a local consideration in any such assessment. 
 I shall attempt to explain that by reference to Heathrow. Any economic report about an application to develop Heathrow would focus on UK plc. It would say that the financial base of the City of London depends on ease of access in and out of the City to the rest of the world via Heathrow. It would also undoubtedly say that UK tourism is hugely dependent on the very large proportion of tourists who, surprisingly, arrive on scheduled airlines through Heathrow. 
 Such a report would also focus on our ability to do business with the rest of the world, because the routes from Heathrow are routes to the right places. It is often said that Charles de Gaulle airport has more routes, but that is only if one wants to go to Niger or to the Ivory Coast. The routes out of Heathrow are crucial to UK plc. 
 These arguments are well known, and an economic impact report on these sorts of issues would rightly say that when considering the environment, the national economic interest should also be considered. These two aspects will quite often conflict. 
 It is also self-evident that, in the case of Heathrow, the regional issue would have to be considered. The regional economy of the Thames valley and the M4 corridor all the way to south Wales and the economic prosperity of Greater London are dependent upon international business and international routes in and out of the world's busiest international airport. 
 I should stress that that is not all that I would expect to see in an economic impact assessment on any of these infrastructures. That is why local people are reluctant, or find it difficult, to get their minds round such issues. About 26 per cent. of my constituents who are in work depend directly or indirectly on Heathrow 
 airport for their livelihoods. That is a huge proportion, comparable to a coal-mining or shipbuilding community. After the tragedy of September 2001 at the World Trade Centre, there were tens of thousands of redundancies, at Heathrow airport and elsewhere. There were several thousand redundancies in my constituency. Such redundancies might seem trivial, but I use the example to make my point about the need to consider local economic issues. 
 There was somebody near my constituency office who made the most wonderful pasta—far better than one would expect to find in a community the size of Staines. That was a huge joy, yet it suddenly disappeared. I was curious about that because, as you can see from my shape, Mr. Amess, pasta figures in my diet. It so happened that the local community lost that joy because that person's biggest customer, Alitalia, had lost so much business owing to the World Trade Centre crisis that it stopped buying anything like as much pasta as previously. People might say that that is trivial, and wonder what it has to do with the issue.

Matthew Green: We do.

David Wilshire: They do wonder. That is the point, and that is why the clause is so important. When one talks about such major projects, one uses such grand concepts as the country and the region. It is so simple to assume that the only local interest in a major infrastructure project will be from local people who gang up and say, ''Our local interest is more important than the national interest'' or ''We don't care about the region, frankly, but we do care about our community.'' It is all too easy for the local community to see the downside. People turn up and protest against national infrastructure projects; in the case of an airport, they protest because of the noise, pollution, surface access problems, and the huge housing costs caused by the demand to live there. One of the great fallacies is that people do not like living near airports. In fact, they queue up to do so. Paradoxically, house prices tend to rise the nearer one gets to an airport.
 It is simple and easy to fall into the trap of assuming that local people are guaranteed to be against a development and that the issues will all be environmental. My argument to my constituents about a runway—it was the same with terminal 5—is that there is a huge economic consideration that must be weighed against the environmental issues. As I said at the outset, one cannot rely on the pressure groups or local councils because they will be motivated by their perceptions of the obvious environmental damage. In fact, a major infrastructure project probably will damage the environment in some way—that is inevitable. If one builds another runway anywhere, there will be a downside to it. We cannot disguise that. 
 The clause should be amended as we suggest. The problems are obvious if, for example, one puts another runway at Heathrow, although I do not necessarily argue in favour of that. However, it is not so obvious, popular or palatable to extend the debate to the issue of the harm that will be done to economy of the 
 nation, region and the local community—and there will be harm to the local community. 
 The ultimate way of reaching decisions on such major infrastructure projects is to strike a balance. One has to accept that there are environmental implications and face up to the economic consequences of not going ahead. One must then take a subjective decision, as there is no objective way of getting the right answer. In the end, however, one must ask where the balance of interests lies in a major infrastructure project. Is the environmental damage so overwhelming that we must refuse it, irrespective of the economic consequences? Are the economic consequences of not proceeding so dire that we must learn to mitigate the environmental consequences so that they are bearable, in the greater interests of the prosperity of not only the nation and the region but the local people? 
 If we learn only one lesson from the fiasco of past public inquiries, it is that from the outset, before there is a public inquiry, the debate should be about the environment and the economy. If we cannot get that right at the beginning we are in danger of making rotten planning decisions that will harm everyone.

David Amess: Order. I advise the Committee that I am minded to have a clause stand part debate, but if the hon. Member for Spelthorne seeks to catch my eye I would not want him to repeat the arguments he has already advanced.

Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold and for Spelthorne have said it all, so my remarks will take a minute or less.
 I want to make two points. First, in an age of environmental impact assessments, there should be an economic impact report on major infrastructure applications for reasons that have already been outlined. 
 Secondly, Conservative Members of the Committee have sought, without success, to include in the Bill a definition of sustainable development and the purpose of planning and I regret that the Minister has not acceded to those requests. However, what unites us is the four legs of what should be taken into account when applications are considered: first, the environment; secondly, sustainable development and the prudent use of natural resources; thirdly, the economic benefits or disbenefits; and fourthly, the importance of the planning application in relation to employment. For those reasons, the clause should contain a requirement for an economic impact report.

Tony McNulty: The amendment requires the economic impact report to be made in relation to an application that has been designated as a major infrastructure project by the Secretary of State. The requirement is not necessary because in the course of the inquiry the inspector will consider all aspects of the application, including economic, environmental and other impacts. It is not the case that such an inquiry would take place without substantial regard to the economic impact of what, by definition, are significant applications.
 The report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment recommended an economic impact report only in relation to transport infrastructure schemes, which require a much broader planning application. SACTRA also recommended that the Government should issue advice on the content of economic impact reports in the transport context. The Government have accepted the proposal for guidance, which the Department is now drafting. 
 Under the planning and land use system, the major infrastructure projects are likely to be on a far wider scale than with transport infrastructure, but that is not unusual. SACTRA did not propose that primary legislation be deployed to require economic impact reports. That is not needed for planning purposes—[Interruption.] That is the first time that I have seen anyone other than a member of the Committee willingly attempt to join our proceedings. Perhaps the speed with which he departed said something about our deliberations. 
 SACTRA did not propose that primary legislation be deployed to require economic impact reports, which are not needed for planning purposes. Depending on the circumstances, all issues material to planning needs already have to be considered. Economic as well as environmental and social aspects are, to some degree, already included. 
 The amendment is unnecessary and is not strictly what SACTRA requested. The notion that the inspector would not consider the economic impact dimension of significantly large applications is entirely wrong. In deliberating on a major infrastructure project, the inspector must consider economic, environmental and all other relevant and material planning considerations. I can imagine very few projects in any context that would not require significant study of the economic dimension as part of due process. The amendment is unnecessary and I ask that it be withdrawn.

David Wilshire: No, that will not do.

Tony McNulty: It is all that the hon. Gentleman is getting.

David Wilshire: The Minister contends that the amendment is unnecessary because the inspector will consider the economic issues. Of course he will, but that is not the point. The point is that if consideration of the economic issues is left until the inquiry, it will be too late and the damage will already have been done. The ability to take a balanced decision that is seen to be balanced and fair is hugely compromised by the Minister's view.

Tony McNulty: Rubbish.

David Wilshire: If the Secretary of State does not put the economic arguments into the public domain at the outset, the people who oppose the developments will be seen as having vested interests. In the Heathrow terminal 5 debate, for example, if the Secretary of State does not put forward the considered, balanced and researched economic arguments, it will be left to British Airways, Virgin, British Midland, the Star Alliance, One World Alliance and so forth to do so,
 but they will be sneered at—''They would say that, wouldn't they?''—because they appear to have selfish vested interests. The only way to prevent the damage done by leaving the economic case to people with an economic interest is to accept the amendment, or similar provision. Otherwise, these successful businesses would be undermined.
 As I said earlier, I make no apology for speaking up for the business interest of Heathrow airport. About 60,000 jobs have been created, and who knows how many more—60,000, 70,000 or 80,000—will be created by the success of future businesses? Sneering at companies that create so many jobs for my constituents does not help the balanced consideration of an application.

Huw Edwards: Would the hon. Gentleman therefore be prepared to speak out against the proposal for a Severn-side international airport, advocated by one of his former colleagues, Mr. Michael Stephens, a former hon. Member for Worthing, East and Shoreham?

David Amess: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Spelthorne will resist responding to that point, which is out of order.

David Wilshire: I am grateful, Mr. Amess, as it rescues me from having to admit that I know nothing about the details of that proposal and could not possibly comment. I would, of course, be happy to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman afterwards.
 A south Wales issue is relevant to my point about the need for a balanced consideration of economic factors. British Airways does much of its servicing in south Wales, so if Heathrow and British Airways were damaged by the failure to conduct a proper economic debate, a spin-off would be redundancies in the area. The more one examines the economic dimensions of huge infrastructure projects, the easier it becomes to see a spin-off for constituencies way beyond the immediate area. 
 The Minister has not come anywhere near understanding the issues at stake. He fails to realise the damage that could and would be done if something along the lines of an economic report were not produced at the outset. I plead with him to change his mind between now and Report. The issue is so important and so relevant to so much in this country that I hope that we will return to it on Report.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister will see how passionately my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne feels about the amendment. The issue is clearly important, and as my hon. Friend said, we will want to return to it on Report, subject to Mr. Speaker's ruling. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 360, in
clause 43, page 31, line 10, at end insert— 
 '(c) to require all those seeking to give evidence in person to submit in advance a written summary of the evidence they 
wish to give so that he can restrict the evidence given in person to new evidence that has not already been given.'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 361, in
clause 43, page 31, line 10, at end insert— 
 '(c) to submit his report under subsection (7) by a specified date.'.

David Wilshire: I fear that the Committee will have to hear about airports again. The best example of why such amendments are necessary is the country's longest planning inquiry, which just happens to relate to terminal 5. I am not wedded to the wording of either amendment, but I am deeply committed to the principles behind both.
 When the Government started their consultation on planning issues, which led to the Bill, they identified many important issues. One was the need to do something about the length of major planning inquiries, and there was the inevitable hue and cry from the predictable people, who said that it was not a good idea; that, somehow or other, it was not democratic; and that people should be given every opportunity to speak. However, my experience of the T5 planning inquiry is that it was not a democratic process but an attempt by certain people to thwart proceedings by spinning them out for as long as possible so that it would probably be too late to implement decisions by the time they had been reached. 
 That raises two issues, which the Government really must pluck up their courage to address despite the hue and cry and the criticism they will get from certain quarters. The first is covered by amendment No. 360, which relates to the abuse of procedures for giving evidence in person. The second is covered by amendment No. 361, which relates to the open-ended time scale for these wretched procedures. 
 As regards giving evidence in person, a major infrastructure project—particularly in the aviation industry—could easily involve 1 million people who live fairly close by. Anyone who wants to have a debate about runways soon realises that 1 million people, or 500,000 households, may be affected. However, the vast numbers are not the issue. It is always said on such occasions that pressure groups speak for vast numbers, and 10,000 might look like a lot, but it is just 1 per cent. of 1 million.

Matthew Green: To paraphrase the amendment, the hon. Gentleman is trying to speed up the process to ensure that as little time as possible is wasted hearing the same evidence on several separate occasions. Does he not think that a similar rule should apply in this Committee?

David Wilshire: There is a difference. A planning inquiry seeks to improve the lot of the community in the local area, the region or the nation. In our proceedings, other hon. Members and I are doing our level best to improve a dreadful Bill. If it takes us heaven knows how long to prevent it from being inflicted on the country, I make no great apologies. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am perfectly prepared to have my tail tweaked on occasions, and I have to learn to live with that. However, I will now have to go back to where I started.
 As I said, a project could easily affect 1 million people, and a group of 10,000 would represent just 1 per cent. of that number. Sometimes, our knees knock when someone comes along saying, ''I speak on behalf of 10,000 people. I demand to be heard.'' One per cent. of a community should not be allowed to hold the other 99 per cent. to ransom, which is what happened on those occasions. I do not for one minute suggest that all 10,000 people—all 1 per cent.—will go off to a public inquiry. Life is not like that. However, it would take only 0.1 per cent. of that lot to be prepared to give evidence in order to have 1,000 people. That does happen. If 1,000 people all demand to be heard and want to say exactly the same thing, years go by and we are no further forward. Democracy demands the opportunity for everybody to say something new, but if it has been said 500 times before, it is not an abuse of democracy to say, ''Well, we have heard it before.'' 
 If you have heard my arguments before, Mr. Amess, you will shut me up. The fact that I am not being ruled out of order tells the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that I am not yet being repetitive. Just as we rightly have rules for debate in the House whereby one cannot be repetitive, the purpose of amendment No. 360 is to apply similar rules to a public inquiry to prevent someone spinning out an argument year upon year. 
 I know the argument goes that if one imposes a timetable on public inquiries, as I seek to do—or seek to give the Secretary of State powers to do—in amendment No. 361, people will argue that that is undemocratic because one is saying, ''We are going to take a decision whether you like it or not and whether you have finished debating or you haven't.'' I understand that. However, against the argument that a public inquiry should take as long as is necessary, we must take into account the effect of spinning it out. 
 I shall give some brief examples that arise from T5 issue. In that time, Heathrow has lost business and therefore jobs. At one stage it was possible to fly into one terminal on BA or another airline and to transfer to another terminal. An individual would be ticketed through on connecting flights, and there would be three quarters of an hour between arrival and departure. That gap is now around an hour and a quarter. The reason that it takes that length of time is the congestion at Heathrow. The airport needs another terminal, and it could have had one by now. When people who are travelling intercontinentally look at how long it takes to transfer at Heathrow, they will make their connections elsewhere in Europe. The congestion is such that even if people are ticketed through in an hour and a quarter, they still miss their connections. 
 Business has been lost during the T5 inquiry because of the congestion and the failure to build the terminal. Jobs have been lost as result, and it will be incredibly difficult to get them back. Another issue that we have seen in the newspapers in the past few days—I predict we shall see it again this weekend—is that when a project such as terminal 5 was considered, costings were done and assumptions were made based on good research and hard facts. Five years later, costs 
 have escalated to the extent that the entire project may become unviable. That is what the protestors seek to achieve. 
 A timetable is necessary because all the projects concerned are national projects that are important to this country. If the Government allow a planning inquiry to go on and on and on, any future public inquiry on runways will break the record of T5. That will be the tactic that protesters will use. In the period spent waffling before that decision is taken, our competitors will have overtaken us, and it becomes too late to redress the situation. Runways and terminals are being built outside this country, and people will transfer to them because they are a better bet than having to put up with suffering while people seek to wreck the project by spinning out this public inquiry. It is a few people only, and we tend to know who they are: they are self-appointed; they are not democratically elected; and they have an agenda that is not in the best interests of the majority of people I, and others, represent. We need some restriction on the abuse of democracy occasioned by hundreds and hundreds of people saying the same thing and spinning out applications in the hope that the developers will go away. The amendments may not be perfect in their wording, but in principle they are necessary.

Sydney Chapman: I did not expect that in serving on this Standing Committee I would become much better informed about the comings and goings-on at Heathrow international airport.
 I support the amendments because my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is making a good point, but I, too, am unsure whether amendment No. 360 is written in the best possible way. It would allow the Secretary of State to direct the lead inspector 
''to require all those seeking to give evidence in person to submit in advance a written summary of the evidence they wish to give so that he can restrict the evidence given in person to new evidence that has not already been given.''

David Wilshire: I stand chastened by my hon. Friend. He wisely did not write amendments on new year's day, for reasons he gave earlier. I may have got the English wrong because I wrote this amendment on new year's day.

Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend is very honest. However, I subscribe entirely to the point behind the amendment. It is helpful for evidence to be written down at the outset so that it is known what each person will give evidence about, rather than to have a shambling, rolling procedure in which anyone can come in at any time. Before I commit to supporting the amendment, subject to the Minister's response, I am sure that my hon. Friend can assure me that those people will still be able to give oral evidence to the inquiry because it is essential not only that they put their point of view to the inspector, but that they can be cross-examined by other parties. Therefore, I support the thrust of amendment No. 360.
 My hon. Friend spoke about the Heathrow terminal 5 saga. I remember one before that—the Sizewell B inquiry about a nuclear power station near Aldeburgh on the east coast of Suffolk. Instruments should be used to ensure the efficiency, as well as the fairness, of 
 such major infrastructure public inquiries. I have another point to make which applies to both the past inquiries. We should consider not only the length of the inquiry, which in those two cases was overly long, but the time taken after the inquiry for the inspector to report his findings to the Secretary of State. That sometimes takes many months or even years. 
 We should also examine the time that the Secretary of State takes between receiving the inspector's report and pronouncing his judgment. That, too, has been held up, for political reasons. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow would agree that there would have been no question of the announcement about Heathrow terminal 5 coming out just before a general election. It is obviously prudently safe for the inspector to release his decision as soon as possible after an election. Members may think that the iron has entered my soul far too early, but I do not say that with cynicism; I present it simply as an objective fact. Secretaries of State understandably consider the political considerations as well as the merits of an inquiry's findings.

Matthew Green: I cannot support the amendments. Amendment No. 360 would restrict the right of the public to do something that the hon. Member for Spelthorne does here. I would defend his right to do it here, reluctantly, and the right of other people do to it outside.
 Amendment No. 361 is the equivalent of a programme motion. I am surprised that the Conservatives should support it, as they usually oppose such motions. What is worse, it is a programme motion on which the public cannot vote—unlike those in the House.

David Wilshire: If the Committee were to last four years, even I might support a timetable motion.

Matthew Green: At least we can debate and vote on the programme motion; the public will not be allowed to, so I cannot support the amendments.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Because the knife will come down at 11.25 am, large sections of the Bill will be undebated. In particular, we will not have debated schedule 2. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne drafted amendment No. 382, which would apply the provisions of clause 43 to the timetabling made under schedule 2. That is an important amendment, but we shall not have time to reach it.

Sydney Chapman: That causes me some surprise. Although I see from today's selection list that the knife is to fall at 11.25 am, the list for the previous sitting said 11.25 pm. I would be grateful, Mr. Amess—

David Amess: Order. That is not the case. On other occasions, too, it said 11.25 am.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The point is, however, that large chunks of part 5 of the Bill—as well as schedule 2 and my hon. Friend's important amendment—

David Amess: Order. I entirely see the hon. Gentleman's point, but I ask him to stick to the amendments before the Committee.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I entirely accept your ruling, Mr. Amess, but I hope that you will allow me another minute or two—or even 30 seconds.

David Amess: Order. I have made my decision. I ask the hon. Gentleman to stick to the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: When he addresses amendment No. 361, I ask the Minister to say whether, in respect of timetabling, this clause and this amendment apply also to schedule 2. That would be helpful, because as I read the Bill they do not. It seems odd that all other planning applications should be subject to the timetabling but not those in clause 43.
 The Minister will recall that he—or was it his predecessor, now the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)?—introduced statutory instrument 2002/1223, the Town and Country Planning (Major Infrastructure Project Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2002, which covered timetabling and how evidence should be given. Those rules were made under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. How will the powers under the 1992 Act that produced the 2002 rules mesh with clause 43? Under that statutory instrument, which we voted against, paragraph (5) states that: 
''the Secretary of State may in writing require any other person, who has notified him of an intention or wish to appear at an inquiry, to send within 4 weeks of being so required . . . 3 copies of their statement of case to him; and . . . a copy of their statement of case to any statutory party.''
 It seems that the Government have already introduced a statutory instrument that governs how evidence is to be submitted. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. 
 In relation to amendment No. 361, the timetable for the Secretary of State is an important matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will remember—I am sorry, Mr. Amess, to return to the terminal 5 inquiry—one of the reasons that it took so long was that the Secretary of State took a year and a half to make his decision after the inspector had reported. Often, a major cause of delay in major infrastructure project inquiries is how long it takes the Secretary of State to make a decision. I accept that complex issues need to be discussed, but paragraph 20 of the same statutory instrument contains the phrase: 
''The Secretary of State shall, as soon as practicable''.
 That is putting the onus on him, but the problem is that having put that onus on himself, he then removes it in paragraph 22, which deals with allowing further time. It states: 
''The Secretary of State may at any time in any particular case allow further time for the taking of any step which is required''.
 In other words, the onus on the Secretary of State to make a decision as soon as possible is removed. It seems quite wrong that we have a rigid timetable under that statutory instrument—how and when witnesses are to give evidence, the timetable for submitting it and for cross-questioning people on other inquiries, the procedure for appointing inspectors, conciliators, 
 arbitrators and everything else covered by that huge statutory instrument—yet there appears to be no onus on the Secretary of State to make his decision, the most important decision of all, within a reasonable time. 
 Amendment No. 361 therefore has some validity. I am less inclined to think the same of amendment No. 360, but my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will have to consider that matter when deciding whether to press it to a Division. It will be interesting, in the short time left to us, to hear what the Minister has to say; my hon. Friend will then be able to make up his mind what to do.

Tony McNulty: Schedule 2 does not apply to major infrastructure projects. The hon. Member for Cotswold was right to say that timetables do not apply to the Secretary of State; nor should they, in the global sense, because seeking to impose a timetable on major infrastructure projects is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Each project will be complex and different. We may set a timetable for the Secretary of State's consideration, if appropriate, but that will certainly not be included in primary legislation.
 Amendment No. 360 is the most ludicrous amendment; it would do nothing to aid the speedy consideration of major infrastructure projects. Reading it literally, it seems that the amendment would result in anyone who had an interest in a major infrastructure project having to submit evidence in advance, and appearing before the inquiry only if they had new evidence above and beyond that which they had already submitted. That is a literal interpretation of the amendment; if it seeks to do something else, then it is has clearly failed. It will not add in any way, shape or form to the speed with which such projects are determined. Primary legislation is not the place to make such procedural points. The amendment is not worth entertaining. 
 Provisions broadly similar to that proposed in amendment No. 360 can be found in the Nicholas Parsons clause; an inspector has the discretion to rule out third-party evidence if he considers it repetitive or irrelevant, and he can ask persons who are making similar points to combine their arguments. Rather than messing up our deliberations—I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said at the start of our proceedings; I shall talk to him about that afterwards—perhaps the Modernisation Committee should introduce a Nicholas Parsons clause on how to chair Committees. Members would be invited to sit down if they repeated ad nauseam—in which case, we would have heard far less from the hon. Member for Spelthorne.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. On Tuesday afternoon, the Government gave me and my colleagues a lecture on not persisting with an amendment that would have resulted in the reprinting of the Bill. In a moment or two we shall be asked to vote on Government amendment No. 297, which was on the selection paper for consideration on Tuesday. As the Government have not withdrawn it, why were we wrong to require the reprinting of the Bill? I assume that the Government will insist on their amendment, which will cause the Bill to be reprinted.
 Should they not apologise to us for using a spurious argument to attack us?

David Amess: Order. That is not a matter for me; the amendment is a matter for the Government.

Tony McNulty: It was actually, if I could pursue that, a vicious attack by me on the Government and their inability to have only two typographical errors in the entire Bill. That was the premise behind it, and that alone.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002] and the Order of the Committee [9 January 2003], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Amendment negatived. 
 The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Simplified planning zones

Amendment proposed: No. 297, in 
clause 44, page 32, line 28, at end insert— 
 '(3A) In section 83 of that Act after subsection (3) there is inserted the following subsection— 
 ''(4) In this section and in Schedule 7— 
 (a) a reference to the regional spatial strategy must be construed in relation to any area in Greater London as a reference to the spatial development strategy; 
 (b) a reference to a region must be construed in relation to such an area as a reference to Greater London.''.'.
 —[Mr. McNulty.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, that clauses 45 to 49 stand part of the Bill, that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill, and that clauses 50 to 53 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.